MUBI

The best of Godard’s early films (and of the French New Wave, barring maybe Trans-Europ-Express— Robbe-Grillet), and certainly not one of his (usually fascinating) ambitious failures, Band of Outsiders is the movie Tarantino and every other director with pretensions to the ‘cool’ and ‘hip’ have been trying to make since. Of course, the reason it works in the first place is because this movie is almost unbelievably lacking in pretensions to such status, or at least the final product suggests so. The dance scene, the run through the Louvre, the minute of silence, etc. are all masterpieces in cinema.

This would have to be my favorite Godard film. I fell in love with it upon first viewing and I always love coming back to it. The best thing to me about this piece is that it flows like water, one thought, gesture, phrase, look, and dance leading into the next. I love how the two guys discover Anna’s character and try to see how they can use her for what they want. This one of Godard’s earlier films and I mention that because it has more of a coherent plot than his later stuff (“2 or 3 Things I Know About Her” for example). There are numerous famous scenes in this film which, from a historical perspective, would be reason enough to check it out if you’re a film buff. All in all, it may be Godard’s most accessible film for the casual film viewer. Those expecting some of his revolution-related subject matter would be better checking out “Le Chinoise” or late 60’s/early 70’s Godard.

I watched this very recently; had an old VHS copy of it and was about to dump my old tape collection….Just gave it one more run. I was surprised all over! You know, those little intellectual post modern experimental niftynesses that so many cool cats hang their hats on nowadays? Well Godard completely disarms the deconstructivists, even when he shoots a one minute long scene without sound: you feel his experiment, you don’t think about it!
Real good story with an authentic dramatic feel.

One of Jean-Luc Godard’s better films, mainly because it shows a mastery of cinematic language rather than pretentiously flaunting it. It’s still not a great film – it’s slow-paced and meandering (as French New Wave films tend to be) and still pretty pretentious at times (as Godard tends to be) with some cheesy voice-over narration, and it’s pretty weak as a crime drama and only marginally successful as a character piece. But there are some strong naturalistic performances and a few compelling moments. Great score by Michel Legrand.

Jean-Luc Godard returns to the crime genre, if only in spirit, five years after “Breathless”, for this radical menage of rambling referencing and cinematic improvisation. The plot, as such as there is one, concerns two young thieves who persuade a lovely classmate (Anna Karina) to rip off her wealthy aunt, but in the time it takes to formulate the job (the money presides in an unguarded, unlocked chest in a bedroom), the trio drive around Paris talking nonsense, dancing in cafes, and running through the Louvre in record time. The latter two have become quite famous, especially the cafe dance sequence, which Godard leaves unedited, but interrupts periodically with his own ironic voice-over commentary, one of the many jarring narrative devices that Godard takes to break as many rules as possible. As pretentious as some of those rules are (Godard’s director’s title simply says “cinema”), and as boring as the plot is, the film remains one of the director’s easiest films to watch, thanks primarily to the improvisational performances of Karina, Sami Frey, and Claude Brasseur, and the ace cinematography of Raoul Coutard, who could always take the most benign Godardism and make it look like more than a sophisticated prank by a petulant radical.

When it comes to a film by Jean-Luc Godard, it may be better for you to go in with eyes wide, ready to go on a journey of surrealism and cerebral craziness instead of one tied to a strict plot. Bande à part is a perfect example of this as the story itself, loosely based on an American pulp novel, is very slight and acts only as a framework for the events occurring. Two classmates learning English strike up a friendship, she tells about the stolen government cash at the house where she lives, he tells his friend, and the three decide to pull a heist and get out of the city. Most of the film consists of the waiting and botched attempts at getting the job done. You can see a lot of influence for Quentin Tarantino here and just as his films rely on conversation to fill the empty space, Godard does the same. Whether it be reading the newspaper, having air gun battles with each other, formulating their plan at a diner table where they even partake in a minute of true/complete silence, these kids are your everyday normal young adults, figuring out ways to entertain each other, falling in love, and getting talked into doing bad things.

The heist aspect is never at the forefront though. What the characters do on the way to that inevitable conclusion makes the film interesting. Loudly passing notes in English class; impromptu dance moves at the diner, alternating between moments of music and others devoid of that soundtrack for only the noise they create; and running through the Louvre to break a record for fastest viewing are just a few of the eccentric things that go on. Chock full of inside jokes and nods to his industry friends and peers, Godard creates a world that, while steeped in reality, truly resides on an alternate level of consciousness. Just the fact that it is narrated throughout lends a manufactured feel. When you are told early on that if you missed the beginning you only have to know a few things, promptly recited to you, and when it ends you are sales-pitched on a sequel that does not exist, you will realize what you are seeing is not any ordinary piece of work. What boggles the mind then is that it was shot in 1964, doing things that had not been done in cinema before, yet are now so commonplace you don’t even think twice.

Much like Tarantino has appropriated from this film, the characters themselves do the same thing for films they have seen. Basing the entire heist on the fact that it works in the movies and they can do it just as good comments on how cinema has begun to influence the world’s youth. It is all a game to the two men, devoid of the stakes that exist right in front of their faces. Never fully fleshing out any real plan, they fly by the seat of their pants, relying on the girl’s insights to be truths and as a result are very sloppy. They don’t work out escape plans, what will happen if the door is locked, or care that Arthur, the brains behind the operation once Franz tells him the situation at Odile’s house, has told his uncle the plan and said to be there after it is all done. Double-crosses aplenty at the end, but once again, this is “real” life and Arthur never anticipates the severity of what he is doing and how much greed can influence someone into doing whatever it takes to come out the winner.

Our trio is very naïve and partakes in a strange love triangle made up of a mix of love, lust, necessity, and information retrieval and sharing. Each is using the other for their own means with none realizing the lies and deceit until they are in the midst of the robbery itself. By then it is too late.

For me, the true brilliance lies in the craft of the work itself. The sound editing at moments like the dancing in the diner are unlike anything, jarring you out of your comfort zone, telling you that what you see has been manufactured and manipulated rather then attempt to create a world to escape to. While watching, you never lose the grasp of the world you are actually in. This is a work of art making itself visible to you; it is not a story to be transported into. Seeing a sequence of Odile singing a song and actually looking right into the camera at we the audience shows the breaking of the fourth wall and insists blatantly that we are viewing artistry, not seeing a glimpse into the film’s own world.

Credit the acting for its natural feel and gritty realism. Anna Karina is beautiful; showing at all times her shy sexuality, drawing men in without even trying. She is playing with the boys because she thinks they are playing with her. Always looking for a way out, they keep forcing her back into being an accomplice, something not quite kosher with her sensibilities, but on she treks, following every step of the way. Sami Frey, as Franz, is constantly brooding, acting as though he is in total control, unafraid of anything. Karina even mentions on a couple occasions that he scares her with his tenacity. While we see him break into smile every now and then, the others believe his façade as stoic power. As for Arthur, played by Claude Brasseur, he is the one grown up in an abusive house, always looking for the big score. Willing to do whatever it takes, his nonchalance and calm demeanor lull his friends into his trap, leading them to do the work while he reaps the benefits. That is until the conclusion when the charade becomes real and the kids realize that they have not been playing a game at all.